MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Pitbulls should be banned

Pitbulls should be banned

posted 2 years ago by Leodicaprio (6426)
141 replies | jump to latest

Whenever you bring up the fact that pitbulls have certain traits that may make them dangerous you are called a dog racist.yet if you say a greyhound was bred to race, a retriever to retrieve, and an Australian Shepard to herd that is totally acceptable common knowledge and facts.

There are plenty of misconceptions about Pitbull's capabilities that are untrue. they for instance cant lock their jaw, and don't have the highest bite strength.

but what they do have is a long history of breeding to fight.
it first started off in England, where for hundreds of years they were used to bull/ bear bait (hence the name) and fight these large animals while ignoring the pain. When that was banned, dog fighting began, and someone had the amazing idea of mixing them with a terrier! This increased gaminess, which is to develop traits of eagerness despite the threat of substantive injury.

Hence the ignoring of pain, continued mauling despite attempts to stop. You will never find a video of a golden retriever or a Labrador going after a large horse, let alone being constantly kicked and not stopping. or the multiple videos of mailings where the dog is being hit or shot and won't stop mauling.

I can find the source if requested, but one expert on dogs remarked how he approached a pit on the other side of the fence. it gave all the indicators of friendliness, wagging its tail accompanied with a play bow. wen he got closer it tried to go for him through the fence. That seems to be the issue here. unlike there breeds, the line between fun and play and brutal attacking mauling is one in the same because they were literally bred for hundreds of years for that to be the case

Now before anyone says "its all the owners! it used to be German shepherds and rottweillers". well the top other 3 breeds known for attacking. if you combine all their recorded kills in US history, still do not equal pittbull kills ion the last 10 years. This does not mean if you own one you have a 100% chance of being mauled. but you bet your ass your odds are far higher.

there doesnt seem to be a good reason to own such a dangerous breed

[–] MaximRecoil (4280) 2 years ago

Even if your idea of banning "pitbulls" weren't a stupid one, there would be no way implement such a ban in a way that's logically valid, because "pitbull" can't be concretely defined in the first place. It's like the equally stupid attempts to ban so-called "assault weapons," which also can't be concretely defined.

For example, suppose you ban "pitbulls." Okay, well, this dog isn't a "pitbull," it's an American Staffordshire Terrier. So you ban those too, because they look like what you envision as a "pitbull," and then you start including the names of other breeds that you consider to be "pitbull-like." Okay, well, we're going to change the names of these breeds, so they aren't on your goofy little ban list anymore. And that doesn't even account for "pitbull-like" mongrels for which no established breed name applies to begin with.

Like I said, simpletons do the same thing with so-called "assault weapons." They start by trying to define them in a way that would distinguish them from functionally-identical guns that they aren't trying to ban (yet) like a Remington Woodsmaster, which is a fool's errand, because their premise is faulty to begin with. When the manufacturers make easy workarounds to the guns because the trivial shit they're banning has nothing to do with fundamental function, they start listing specific makes and models. At that point they've tacitly conceded that they are bankrupt in the logic department.

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

multiple countries and Canadian provinces have done it.

nooo it literally can be concretely defined. Not only do they have a fairly distinct look, objective measures like genetics can confirm it.

ohh nice whataboutism. you turned a post about pitbulls, into half about your rant about assault weapons. start your own thread so you can spread your nonsense

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

I think pit bulls are dangerous but the US is a country that promotes liberty and freedom. I don't have a problem with apartment complexes banning them or even neighborhoods. My solution would be a special dangerous dog license for the dangerous breeds and severe penalties like the death penalty for a fatal dog attack and several years in prison if a dog mauls somebody. The chart below shows that pit bulls are the dogs most responsible for fatalities BUT that ignores the trauma of the serious nonfatal attacks.

https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-multi-year-fatality-report-2005-2017.php

[–] MaximRecoil (4280) 2 years ago

"multiple countries and Canadian provinces have done it."

So? I doubt there's a country on Earth that doesn't have its fair share of stupid/illogical laws.

"nooo it literally can be concretely defined."

No, it literally can't, and I already explained why.

"Not only do they have a fairly distinct look"

You want to go by appearance? LOL at that. You're automatically in the logically invalid category when doing that. Going by looks boils things down to people's opinions, and that's precisely the opposite of a concrete definition. Have you ever read a thread where someone claims that Person A looks like Person B? If so, you would know that people never agree on stuff like that, except maybe when talking about identical twins, and that's with the thing we are most familiar with (people's faces). Going by looks as the "defining" factor with dogs is an utter joke.

"objective measures like genetics can confirm it."

Not necessarily, and who's going to pay for these DNA tests on dogs? And what about mongrels? What percentage of "pitbull" DNA is the threshold for the ban? And what about breeds that are not named "pitbull" but you think "look" like a "pitbull"?

"ohh nice whataboutism. you turned a post about pitbulls, into half about your rant about assault weapons. start your own thread so you can spread your nonsense"

It's an analogy, simple fellow, and a valid one at that. Consider your laughable attempt to redefine the term "whataboutism," dismissed.

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

the fact you say "who is going to pay for these" its somehow an argument that breed genetics can't be identified shows you have nothing.

you may leave now

it really isn't a good analogy. as they are not comparable

[–] MaximRecoil (4280) 2 years ago

"the fact you say "who is going to pay for these" its somehow an argument that breed genetics can't be identified"

Reading Deficiency Alert

"shows you have nothing."

Comical Irony Alert

"it really isn't a good analogy."

It's a valid analogy. It doesn't matter whether you think it's "good" or not.

"as they are not comparable"

Yes, they are, and I already detailed the valid points of comparison. Consider your mere gainsaying dismissed out of hand. Also, your tacit concession that "pitbull" can't be concretely defined is noted.

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

it really isn't.

one is a breed that can clearly be identified by DNA objectively. one is a gun whose categorization can vary based off politicians.

a Pitbull can and has been identified, try again

[–] MaximRecoil (4280) 2 years ago

"it really isn't."

Yes, it is.

"one is a breed that can clearly be identified by DNA objectively."

First, it isn't "a breed," i.e., there is no breed that's simply called "pitbull." Second, DNA tests are far from, and aren't even claimed to be, infallible. Third, DNA tests are useless when there's no concrete definition of a "pitbull" to compare the results to in the first place. Fourth, even if they did have any legitimacy (they don't), who's going to pay for these DNA tests on dogs? You? Also, LOL at you dodging the issue of mongrels that, in some people's opinion, look like their idea of a "pitbull." What's the exact percentage of "pitbull DNA" that makes a mongrel a "pitbull," and what exactly constitutes "pitbull DNA" in the first place?

"one is a gun whose categorization can vary based off politicians."

Your concession is noted, since it's a fact that the categorization of "pitbulls" also varies "based off politicians," and that's because it's impossible to concretely define either "pitbulls" or "assault weapons," as I've already told you.

"a Pitbull can and has been identified"

There is no concrete definition for "pitbull," as I've already told you.

"try again"

Comical Irony Alert: Part II

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

It looks like Canada classified four breeds as pit bulls in a few provinces but they also specified mixed breeds that are based on these other breeds. Dogsbite.org included the American bulldog as a pit bull BUT I did notice that a lot of people argue online over what is a pit bull.

Currently, pit bull terriers, Staffordshire bull terriers, American Staffordshire terriers and American pit bull terriers are named in the act as banned dogs — all considered pit bulls.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-pit-bull-ban-1.6238568

https://www.dogsbite.org/dangerous-dogs-pit-bull-faq.php

[–] MaximRecoil (4280) 2 years ago

"BUT I did notice that a lot of people argue online over what is a pit bull."

That's because it can't be concretely defined. Notice that there are no arguments over what e.g., gold, titanium, carbon, oxygen, or anything else that's concretely defined, is.

Just because various governments have made laws doesn't mean they are logically valid. Logically invalid laws are probably more common than logically valid ones. Politicians tend to be both stupid and corrupt.

[–] joej2923 (2959) 2 years ago

The experts have determined which breeds will bite someone's leg and NOT let go. I can always tell which dogs are pit bulls since the dogs are trying to bite my leg while the owner is holding the leash real tight.

[–] MaximRecoil (4280) 2 years ago

"The experts have determined which breeds will bite someone's leg and NOT let go."

LOL at "experts," especially unnamed and uncited ones. Any animal that's capable of biting at all is also capable of deciding to "NOT" let go, obviously.

"I can always tell which dogs are pit bulls since the dogs are trying to bite my leg while the owner is holding the leash real tight."

So that's your idea of a definitive test? Any dog that doesn't try to bite your leg isn't a "pitbull," and any dog that does, is a "pitbull"? Is that a joke?

In any case, your tacit concession that "pitbull" can't be concretely defined is noted.

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

its not about politicians. its about these breeds being more dangerous.

have you EVER seen a video of a golden retriever attacking a horse, being kicked and continue attacking?

or a golden retriever mauling someone, and not letting go despite being literally shot 8 times or bashed in the head hard?

it doesn't happen. breeds have traits. despite your protestations

[–] MaximRecoil (4280) 2 years ago

Your post is a non sequitur; consider it dismissed out of hand. Also, your tacit concession that "pitbull" can't be concretely defined is noted.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 2 years ago

Doggie people are irrational when it comes to their dogs.

[–] gcarras (2738) 2 years ago

Yep,. that's us! (I lost my bichon.. 😭) a week ago..

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 2 years ago

Hey ... I know it's late in coming but sorry about the loss of your little pal.

[–] gcarras (2738) 2 years ago

Thanks.. 😎

[–] javie (2207) 2 years ago

2 words. Puppy party. It is now your turn to face your fears.

[–] AndyKing1967 (35149) 2 years ago

I don’t think they mind so much in Korea 😋🤤

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 2 years ago

So you're talking genocide??

🤨

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

lookup the definition of genocide then come back to me

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 2 years ago

I used that term to make a dramatic point, smart ass! Stupid quibbles about terminology aside, by "banning", do you propose KILLING all pit bulls?

If so, you are a monster.

🤨

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

there are other means. if they are illegal it means breeding them is too. the population will soon no longer exist or far less.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 2 years ago

So you are calling for the deliberate and calculated elimination of an entire species. You are a monster,
and would have made a great Nazi.

😠

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

pitbulls are not a species. You seem to use words you do not understand...

yes saying we should stop breeding the most dangerous dog, an animal bred purely to fight and to maul, is monstrous..

imagine we bred a dog who shot poisonous darts and disproportionately murdered people. im sure you would say the same right?

you should google some of the articles about what these innocent dogs have done. ripping of children's arms. ripping off a mothers arms who tried to save her kid form a Pitt who snapped. oh don't forget the old lady who had a seizure. this time her live long pittbull decided it didn't like that and mauled her to death

[–] Capnbucky (2218) 2 years ago

I mean he’s not my favorite dude but he has like 3 good songs .

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

get rid of him immediately! ban him in all countries and fine those who listen to his music! its a danger to society and everyones children!

[–] Capnbucky (2218) 2 years ago

I don’t really think I have the authority to ban him in every country .

[–] Leodicaprio (6426) 2 years ago

if everyone writes their local politician we can get this done

[–] Capnbucky (2218) 2 years ago

Sounds like a lot of writing

[–] actionkamen (23176) 2 years ago

More writing than this Pitbull dude has ever done. His song are like 1 or 2 sentences tops.

[–] sslssg (30701) 2 years ago

Well, he is Mr. Worldwide after all.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 2 years ago

I'll take the dangerous animal over listening to the sound of this guy practicing karate over someone else's music.

[–] AnubisRaydeen (7897) 2 years ago

What do you mean by this?

[–] Moderator5 (1242) 2 years ago

[deleted]